Disposed

Bajranglal Varma v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024WP/3326/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner apprehended being made an accused or facing coercive action by CBI for failing to ensure service of summons on accused no.22, his son. The CBI stated it would not make him an accused or take coercive action; the court found this sufficient protection, kept contentions open, vacated interim order and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

CBI's undertaking recorded: no accusation against petitioner, no coercive action; interim order vacated; petition disposed of with contentions open.

Bajranglal Varma Vs Union of India and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:16045

¶2

Urmila Ingale 917-wp-3326-21.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3326 OF 2021

BAJRANGLAL VARMA

.. PETITIONER

VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Ashutosh Thipsay i/b Mr.Sanjay Kharat, for the petitioner. Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the State. SPP Mr.Amit Munde a/w Mr.Shivam Tiwari for CBI. Mr.Arvind D. More, DSP Limosin, DLA CBI present.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 4, 2024

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. On instructions, learned SPP Shri Munde appearing for

¶14

the respondent no.2 – CBI, in all fairness submitted that the investigating agency does not propose to make the petitioner as an accused. It is further stated that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner for failure on his part to ensure the service of summons on the accused no. 22 i.e. Sunil Varma. Accused no. 22-Sunil Varma is the son of the petitioner.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has co-operated with the CBI and furnished

¶16

1/3

¶17

Urmila Ingale 917-wp-3326-21.doc

¶18

whatever information he had about the accused no.22. Learned SPP Shri Munde denies that the petitioner has cooperated in providing the information about the whereabouts of the accused no.22 except for providing the email-id.

¶19

3. I need not go into the controversy in detail in view of the aforesaid statements made by learned SPP appearing for the CBI which sufÏciently protects the interest of the petitioner. CBI may undoubtedly proceed to take steps in accordance with law to ensure the appearance of the accused no.22 for the trial. However, the responsibility to ensure that the accused no. 22 attends cannot be foisted on the petitioner, as in any case the statements of Shri Munde allays the apprehension of the petitioner.

¶20

4. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for a decision on the correctness of the validity of the impugned order. Needless to mention that it is open for the accused no.22 to resort to appropriate remedy available in law if he is aggrieved by the issuance/ service of summons at the behest of respondent no.2-CBI. All contentions are kept open.

¶21

2/3

¶22

Urmila Ingale 917-wp-3326-21.doc

¶23

5. The petition is disposed of. The interim order, if any,

¶24

stands vacated.

¶25

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶26

3/3

¶27

Signed by: Urmila P. Ingale Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/04/2024 18:15:22

Bajranglal Varma v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajranglal Varma v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbaaz Sameer Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Shree Roadways through Manish R. Thakkar Vs the Government of India through Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.

M/S. Preet Transport Company Vs the Government of India through Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.

Rahul @ Pritipal Ramkishan Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra

Sai Subodh Ghag Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Vilas Kumbhar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.